He's not that kind of Spaniard, he's the kind that is from Greece. AND HE'S A GIRL!!!! [\chopinzee]

Or Moldova.

Seriously, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that he's Spanish, but not entirely literate. He's an immigrant from Libya or some place like that. That's why he always has such a case of penis envy and hemorrhoids.

yeah, and ichbinsysiphos is a frisian and you are some french canadian hailing from Quebec. I haven't figured out Old School yet. Maybe Alabama. But he never mentioned marrying his cousin Betty Sue or his mother sister Peggy Sue and he did mention farm equipment. So he might be some sheep fucker from Arkansas. The Earth is easy. South Africa. Sugar is easy too, he really is from New Zealand, but from the other island._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

Senator Grassley probes into whether White House staff were also involved in the prostitution scandal in Colombia. I heard two White House officials addressing this question today, and they both used suspiciously qualified language, to the effect of, "At this time, I am not aware of any reason to believe that the situation in question was not limited to the personnel already identified." Whenever you hear that kind of "Clintonesque" wording, you know the real answer is the opposite of what they are trying to make you believe.

Maybe this has been addressed, I forget. What is the problem, exactly? Did they use government funds to try paying for it, or is it just that some people have a problem with legalized prostitution?_________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

Senator Grassley probes into whether White House staff were also involved in the prostitution scandal in Colombia. I heard two White House officials addressing this question today, and they both used suspiciously qualified language, to the effect of, "At this time, I am not aware of any reason to believe that the situation in question was not limited to the personnel already identified." Whenever you hear that kind of "Clintonesque" wording, you know the real answer is the opposite of what they are trying to make you believe.

no, it means they are not sure, they have no definitive evidence but whatever they say the media will twist it to sound bad._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

Senator Grassley probes into whether White House staff were also involved in the prostitution scandal in Colombia. I heard two White House officials addressing this question today, and they both used suspiciously qualified language, to the effect of, "At this time, I am not aware of any reason to believe that the situation in question was not limited to the personnel already identified." Whenever you hear that kind of "Clintonesque" wording, you know the real answer is the opposite of what they are trying to make you believe.

no, it means they are not sure, they have no definitive evidence but whatever they say the media will twist it to sound bad.

Oh, they know by now who was involved. But they're not yet done getting all of the Secret Service and Green Beret guys to sign strict non-disclosure agreements specifically deterring them from ever talking about the incident. In other words, they are covering their asses because they know there is a possibility of it getting out that White House personnel were also involved.

If there were nobody from the White House Communications Agency or White House Advance team on the list of names they'd been given, then they'd have been more emphatic in their denial, to quash the rumor, saying something like, "My information is that no White House personnel were involved."

This mealy-mouthed quibbling is very characteristic of the Obama Administration, who like to lie but maintain plausible deniability. And they know who was involved. Obama was briefed yesterday, and by now they've interviewed everybody and have their list of names. Now it's time for damage control, and that means stifling everybody (easy to do on the Secret Service side, because they're all brainwashed about "protecting the President"), but there is no telling what the whores themselves will blurt out, despite probably having already been bribed into silence.

somebody could transmit a contagious disease to the President through his bodyguards

Okay, in fairness, he also gave other reasons which were less ridiculous. That's not really saying much though.

1) I did say I forgot. 2) lol

I'm pretty sure that isn't a reason... the reason is ZOMG! Prostitues! The "security" concerns he mentioned might be valid, but are in no way the reason this blew up into an issue. That he tried to renege on an agreed price should probably be of greater concern. Nobody would have cared if he hired a maid to clean his room._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

The latest information is that, indeed, there were White House staff involved. So far, this is limited to members of the White House Communications Agency. The White House is going to great lengths to point out that these are military communications personnel attached to the White House, as though this somehow means they do not bear responsibility for their actions.

somebody could transmit a contagious disease to the President through his bodyguards

Okay, in fairness, he also gave other reasons which were less ridiculous. That's not really saying much though.

1) I did say I forgot. 2) lol

I'm pretty sure that isn't a reason... the reason is ZOMG! Prostitues! The "security" concerns he mentioned might be valid, but are in no way the reason this blew up into an issue. That he tried to renege on an agreed price should probably be of greater concern. Nobody would have cared if he hired a maid to clean his room.

If you do anything you can be blackmailed for, then you instantly become a security risk.

Prostitution is legal, so the blackmail risk seems insignificant. And as I mentioned, that may be true, but it isn't the reason for the salivating media.

BoneKracker wrote:

The White House is going to great lengths to point out that these are military communications personnel attached to the White House, as though this somehow means they do not bear responsibility for their actions.

Or looking to place blame. I don't think he likes the military any more than the Clintons._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

Prostitution is legal, so the blackmail risk seems insignificant. And as I mentioned, that may be true, but it isn't the reason for the salivating media.

It doesn't matter whether prostitution is legal in Columbia. It's something they don't want people to know they did (like their wives, bosses, the general public, etc.). If you can ruin somebody's family, career, or life with certain information, then you've got them by the balls, and they can no longer be relied upon.

Wives don't tolerate husbands fucking around with whores; neither do children, in-laws, other family members, psuedo-wives, fiancees, serious girlfriends, etc. It's also a violation of Secret Service and military regulations, where such behavior could bring a career-ending letter of reprimand and/or disciplinary action. People will go to great lengths to avoid such trouble, particularly where there is great competition for prestigious roles they are in, and the blackmail risk is not at all insignificant.

pjp wrote:

BoneKracker wrote:

The White House is going to great lengths to point out that these are military communications personnel attached to the White House, as though this somehow means they do not bear responsibility for their actions.

Or looking to place blame. I don't think he likes the military any more than the Clintons.

It's not his fault. His lack of leadership skill and experience has nothing to do with the general lack of discipline, poor motivation, and decrepitude we are seeing all across our government and military. He hasn't created a poor "command climate" by throwing people under the bus, showing disdain for the advice of senior personnel, prioritizing his own political welfare above all else, never taking responsibility for anything that goes wrong, always taking personal responsibility for everything that goes right, or setting the poorest of ethical examples. It's not his fault.

Update: apparently the Obama Administration was (and still is) lying about this; it seems White House personnel were involved (a member of the White House Advance Team and a member of the White House Communications Agency). This is from Fox, but who else is still following this investigation?

Quote:

The lead federal investigator into the Colombia prostitution scandal said for the first time Friday that White House personnel may have been involved -- despite administration claims to the contrary.

Charles Edwards, the acting inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, wrote in a letter to Sen. Susan Collins that his office's investigation into the April incident found "a hotel registry that suggests that two (non-Secret Service) personnel may have had contact with foreign nationals."

The letter came two days after a FoxNews.com report revealed possible White House advance team involvement.

One of those employees, Edwards wrote, was a Defense Department employee "affiliated" with the White House Communication Agency.

The other, he said, "may have been" affiliated with the White House advance team.

The White House denied the claims Friday. And Edwards wrote that his office did not pursue those leads "because they are not DHS personnel."

Edwards wrote that while the allegations that went beyond the Secret Service "were outside the scope of the investigation, one of these employees is a Department of Defense employee affiliated with the White House Communication Agency and the other, whose employment status was not verified, may have been affiliated with the White House advance operation."

That statement, though, calls into question claims made back in April by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the possible involvement of the White House team. Carney said that the White House counsel's office conducted a review and "came to the conclusion that there's no indication that any member of the White House advance team engaged in any improper conduct or behavior."

The Obama administration stood by its original claims in reaction to Edwards' statements.

A senior administration official said the member of the advance team was a "volunteer," as opposed to a White House employee. Further, the official said the volunteer was wrongly implicated based on inaccurate hotel records.

Update: apparently the Obama Administration was (and still is) lying about this too; it seems White House personnel were involved (a member of the White House Advance Team and a member of the White House Communications Agency).

Quote:

The lead federal investigator into the Colombia prostitution scandal said for the first time Friday that White House personnel may have been involved -- despite administration claims to the contrary.

Charles Edwards, the acting inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, wrote in a letter to Sen. Susan Collins that his office's investigation into the April incident found "a hotel registry that suggests that two (non-Secret Service) personnel may have had contact with foreign nationals."

The letter came two days after a FoxNews.com report revealed possible White House advance team involvement.

One of those employees, Edwards wrote, was a Defense Department employee "affiliated" with the White House Communication Agency.

The other, he said, "may have been" affiliated with the White House advance team.

The White House denied the claims Friday. And Edwards wrote that his office did not pursue those leads "because they are not DHS personnel."

Edwards wrote that while the allegations that went beyond the Secret Service "were outside the scope of the investigation, one of these employees is a Department of Defense employee affiliated with the White House Communication Agency and the other, whose employment status was not verified, may have been affiliated with the White House advance operation."

That statement, though, calls into question claims made back in April by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the possible involvement of the White House team. Carney said that the White House counsel's office conducted a review and "came to the conclusion that there's no indication that any member of the White House advance team engaged in any improper conduct or behavior."

The Obama administration stood by its original claims in reaction to Edwards' statements.

A senior administration official said the member of the advance team was a "volunteer," as opposed to a White House employee. Further, the official said the volunteer was wrongly implicated based on inaccurate hotel records.

I find complaints about news sources with conservative bias to be amusing, given the preponderance of liberal bias in the media.

Fox, understandably, is apparently the only news outfit still following this investigation. However, if you doubt the story, it does seem to contain verifiable facts (specific quotes of officials, references to documents, etc.). Knock yourself out.

I find those who dismiss truth claims because they don't like the source to be amusing.
Put differently, their reasoning skills are the joke.

I have no problem with the source. If I want pro American shouty journalism I would always turn to Fox. My reasoning skills don't preclude me from snorting derision under my breath.

In any case, the truth about this story is that it is pretty insignificant. I don't doubt it is exactly the way it is reported by Fox, it would not survive very long if there was any other anti-Obama scoops flooding into the newsdesk.

I can understand not caring about the story. It really only seems noteworthy if one is concerned for the president's security. I don't really care about the story either. It is his security team, and his responsibility.

Side note: "pro-American" is an interesting interpretation of Fox. I would assume "pro-American" to defend any president. Or at least any "pro-American" president. Maybe you've been more insightful than you realize._________________Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present, Man Not Caring. -- Perry Cox

I find those who dismiss truth claims because they don't like the source to be amusing.
Put differently, their reasoning skills are the joke.

I have no problem with the source. If I want pro American shouty journalism I would always turn to Fox. My reasoning skills don't preclude me from snorting derision under my breath.

In any case, the truth about this story is that it is pretty insignificant. I don't doubt it is exactly the way it is reported by Fox, it would not survive very long if there was any other anti-Obama scoops flooding into the newsdesk.

There are plenty of anti-Obama scoops flooding into the newsdesks: losing the war in Afghanistan; record low workforce participation; Solyndra scandal; "more flexibility [to cave in to Russian demands] after the election"; Fast & Furious scandal; economy stalling again; attack in Libya "not terrorism" ... although you might perceive these to be flooding into newsdesks because they're being blacked out by the so-called "mainstream" media. These are all important stories -- far more important than taking Romney statements out of context to promote the Obama "cause".